Date: 23 September 2012 3 PM PST
Location: 1315 East Hastings Street, East Vancouver, B.C.
A Father’s Story[1] and A Voice for Men presenting:
Has feminism gone too far?
YOU are invited to answer that question. Yes it has, or no, it has not.
That is the question asked in September of 2012, by a woman of integrity and courage. She posited this question as the premise of a public debate. It was to be discussed by three individuals from the contention that yes, feminism has gone too far, and three individuals arguing that no, feminism has not gone too far.
Unfortunately, following the announcement of this scheduled debate on the social networking site Facebook, that woman was rewarded for her attempt at public discussion by a torrent of abuse and threats. Some individuals apparently did not want a debate. Not only did they not want to participate, they wanted nobody else to either. Under the weight of abuse and threats, that woman whose integrity and courage moved her to propose a public discussion – cancelled the event.
Understandable as the cancellation was, it was also disappointing. But there’s good news.
The debate is back on!
With very special thanks to the East Vancouver Debating Society, A Father’s Story [1] and A Voice for Men will be presenting the re-scheduled debate: “Has feminism gone too far?”
Chris Marshal the manager of CC Motors will be graciously hosting this event at his business CC Motor Cars[2] – where his concept on business is that a good deal is one where buyer and seller is happy.
The debate will be held on Sunday 23 September 2012, 3PM at 1315 Hastings St in East Vancouver, B.C.
The debate format will be three speakers presenting arguments affirming the debate proposition and three speakers presenting arguments against the proposition. Each speaker will have 5 minutes to present an opening argument, alternating between for- and against postions. Following opening arguments, each speaker will have 5 minutes to address presented arguments. A third round of discussion will allow 3 minutes to address counter arguments, and final statements will be formatted within 3 minutes per speaker, for a total of four rounds of discussion for all speakers.
Following the scheduled debate, speakers will address questions and commentary from audience and observers for 55 minutes.
The debate will be moderated by a controller – and recorded on video to be shared online in full.
Note, this event is intended as civilized, civil, and friendly discussion, and sharing of views. Although individuals may feel very strongly about their own positions, participants and audience members will be expected to behave with cordiality, and courtesy.
A Facebook page for the event has been created here.
To participate as a speaker or to inquire about attendance – please email questions and commentary to events@avoiceformen.com
247 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
ErnestoGuevara:
Paul Elam:
ER:
aimeemcgee:
This is awesome. This comes on the heals of a rather startling experience I recently had with a self-described feminist who still believes women have it tougher than men today (no big shock) but for one of the few times ever when encountering such, she was neither sneering nor condescending about men’s issues and was willing to go so far as say that these things often depend upon point of view and respected the idea that men do have a point of view worth hearing–without a smidge of the “what about teh menz” bullshit.
Am I surprised that hateful radfems and white knight enablers tried to shut this down? No. But I’ll be fascinated to watch the debate.
Ever open-minded and ready to be shown I’m wrong, let’s see if the pro-feminists can make some sort of reasonable case for their view today. I don’t see it as having any except in the most subjective terms possible but hey, could be wrong, that’s what the debate’s for right?
The interesting question for me will be who the debate participants will be.
I assume that AVfM is saying that feminism has gone to far.
Does anyone agree that MRAs are “protestant feminists”?
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/09/long-live-the-manosphere/
I actually agree if we take feminist to actually mean “legal equality between men and women”. Pop feminism seems to think that women are generally oppressed so any pro-woman initiative is good. The MRM seems to think that women are treated as quasi-children who were traditionally denied rights and absolved of responsibilities. The imbalance in rights has been largely eliminated, but there hasn’t been a concomitant increase in women’s responsibilities. In fact, pop feminism seems to generally argue that women should have fewer and fewer responsibilities.
If this is the case, should the MRM actually be arguing that feminism hasn’t gone far enough? Specifically, in enforcing the downside of equality on women.
“Imbalance of rights.” I have done extensive study of certain issues comparing: 1) newspaper reports of what REALLY happens in crimes and in family court cases; 2) history of case law on same; 3) history of legislation applicable to same.
CONCLUSION: the history of laws bears little relation to how those laws are applied in the vast majority of courts and the was do not affect behavior in a way that can be accurately measured by the means that are usually employed or predicted.
When it was still illegal for a woman to murder a man or a woman, in many cases the all-male juries failed to convict (chivalry, gullibility, “unwritten law”). All these abstract arguments about “right” being imbalanced, being “equal” or “unequal” miss the point of actual real life experience and behavior. The best law historians do great research on the history of published case law but know nothing about the vast majority of cases not included in the official law registers.
I do not know that there ever was an imbalance of rights that has now been balanced. “Rights” included a smorgasboard of many rights and those rights need to be describes variously as “real” or “on paper only.”
There are many shell games and straw men in all this generalized abstract arguning — from all sides. People do not know the real history. I can tell you for a fact that, since I have studied the literature, that none of the books on the history of divorce are accurate. They all fall into a documentary fallacy (using legal writings and records incorrectly as replacements for documents lived experience, actions, prosecutions, etc.) and all are undermined by leftist theories (social construction, social forces, determinism by material “oprogress,” etc.).
Your point is well taken that there are unwritten rules and customs that need to be taken into account when determining if things are truly equal.
I should probably amend my comment to mean that men traditionally had greater rights of freedom (what I designated as rights), but women traditionally had greater rights of protection (part of what I designated as lack of responsibilities)
The framework I was working from was that yes, traditionally women couldn’t vote, retain control of their assets after marrying. Nor could they expect to be treated just like a man when pursuing professional careers (eg. doctor, lawyer, accountant). These are the types of things I mean by rights of freedom. All of which make sense if you view women as quasi-children.
Regarding the lack of punishment given to female criminals – I think that falls into the responsibilities/ “rights of protection” section. If you commit a murder or other crime, you are responsible and will go to jail for a long time. Unless you are a woman, then you are only partially responsible or perhaps not at all. You will be protected from the full consequence of your actions. Again it makes sense if you view women as quasi-children. It doesn’t make sense if you view women as oppressed. If you are in favour of equality you should want female criminals charged, prosecuted and sentenced to the same degree as male criminals.
I think it’s in the second part where the MRM really differs from pop feminism. I don’t think that the MRM seriously argues that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or be given the opportunity to have a prestigious career. But the MRM argues that women, like men, should be responsible for their actions and suffer the consequences they incur. Further, the MRM argues that men are as deserving of protection as women, while pop feminism does not.
Jack Donovan’s article illustrates one of the other reasons why I generally avoid using the word “feminist” without qualifiers. It’s because the word doesn’t fucking mean anything. Or rather, it means (A) whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment the speaker says it, and (B) simultaneously means whatever the listener wants it to mean whenever they hear it. And the two don’t even necessarily connect.
Such a word therefore is virtually guaranteed to cause instant confusion and pointless tailchasing semantic exercises.
The National Organization For Women, the largest American self-identified “feminist” organization, defines feminism as “The radical notion that women are human beings.” OK, great. If you accept that definition, then I would hazard a guess that about 99% of all participants on A Voice For Men, including Paul Elam, John The Other, Girl Writes What, Typhon Blue, Tara Palmatier, Danny Boy, Dr. F, James Huff, and just about the entire commentariat here are “feminists.”
And if you’re saying “no we’re not!!!” what will you really be doing? Oh. Right. You’ll be defining that “f” word however YOU want to define it. And the semantical tailchasing and futile energy wasting begins once again.
I would hazard a guess that by Jack Donovan’s definitions of feminism (which is probably also subject to change depending on his mood, as it is with just about everybody), most Voice for Menners are “feminist.” After all, Paul Elam takes the position that he thinks, and I quote, “…women are intelligent, rational, mature human beings and expects them to act that way.”
I hold the radical position that women deserve the same rights, responsibilities, duties, accountability, praise and censure that men do. I do not hold the position that men and women must be absolutely statistically equal in all areas. Talk to Feminist A one day and she’ll say that’s a feminist position, talk to Feminist B another day and she’ll say it’s not a feminist position. Ditto, methinks, when talking to someone like Jack Donovan.
Fuck this. Can we concentrate on the social justice issues? Browbeating on feminism is great fun and some feminists surely deserve it, especially the most hateful and vicious ones. But otherwise, don’t you think we’re best served by actually taking action?
If Jack Donovan thinks he can get more done than A Voice For Men to make this a better world, more power to him. I disagree with his approach. I’m taking my own path, as are others here. And we’ll see what happens.
Good comment. Still it raises the issue:
“HAS FEMINISM GONE TOO FAR?”
Could this debate be easily derailed by the participants not agreeing on what is meant by feminism?
Perhaps the debate would be most constructive if the participants agreed on a definition of “feminism” before the debate actually takes place. Otherwise, you’ll just have both sides talking past each other.
Absolutely. This is paramount. Please have the feminism defined up front.
If “the National Organization For Women, the largest American self-identified “feminist” organization, defines feminism as “The radical notion that women are human beings,” then I’d say MRAs have the radical notion that women are grown-ups.
I believe that feminism is simply a selfish, solipsistic creed, which exploits a natural tendency in some men and women towards narcissism.
The result has been a massive epidemic of narcissism across society, across the world (1) particularly amongst college students (2) and researchers agree this will have profound consequences for society.
One study showed that use of the phrase ‘I deserve’ in publications had increased 2000% between 1975 and 2005.
The reason that feminism doesn’t deliver happiness (3) to women is because happiness is dependent on ‘doing for others’.
The reason it doesn’t deliver it to men is because, being a selfish creed, it doesn’t recognise the sacrifices men make (from time with their families all the way to their lives) to support their families, communities and even countries, and in fact punishes and disincentivises such sacrifice.
1. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-narcissism-epidemic/200905/is-there-epidemic-narcissism-today
2. http://news.discovery.com/human/narcissism-epidemic-college-students.html
3. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2009/05/20/study_on_happiness_by_national_bureau_of_economics_finds_women_are_unhappier_than_ever.html
Well I’d love to see you as one of the debaters, Sasha.
As for Dujour’s point: I would predict that this debate will quickly devolve into utter chaos if all participants do not agree to certain ground rules. All using the same definitions would be one way. Another would be to each open by saying what they mean by it. There may be another way I haven’t thought of, but I’m not in charge.
If I were running it (and I am not) I would demand that one definition be used, and I would define it as “the intellectual movement begun by the following authors (name them) and that continues to be forwarded by academic Gender Studies programs and Feminist Theorists in academia.” And make them stick to that.
By that definition, I think almost nobody at AVFM can reasonably be called a feminist. Neither could a lot of people who now THINK they are themselves feminists but pretty much aren’t.
I do take Sasha’s radical position to heart: as an MRA, I expect women to act like adults and to be treated as same. I think some people calling themselves feminists think this too, but many do not, or they make excuses for women who don’t.
Feminism has a slippery definition for a reason. It’s a defense mechanism. It allows feminists to distance themselves from those that draw negative attention themselves, while simultaneously maintaining the safety in numbers they enjoy. If feminists cut their Sisters loose every time they got busted being just a little too much of a bigoted waste of air, the politicians would stop listening to them because there wouldn’t be many of them left.
Which is why I gave them my own definition. I forgot the exact wording of it. It’s around here somewhere.
NBA player Charlie Bell’s wife once attacked him with a knife, a crime to which she plead guilty. Because of this, Bell sought and received a divorce. As part of the settlement, he has to give her:
over a million dollars
his house
half his
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120910/SPORTS0202/209100396/Report-Divorce-settlement-costly-turnover-ex-Spartan-Charlie-Bell?odyssey=mod
Oh I’m sorry, what were we talking about here?
Has feminism gone too far? Wrong question.
No, feminism has not gone too far at all. To suggest that it has gone too far is to suggest that its inception was somehow justified. No, at no stage was feminism’s existence justified because it was always based on false assumptions from the get-go.
Asking whether feminism has gone too far is like asking whether Astrology, or Witchcraft, or Voodoo, or Tarot cards, has gone too far. Sure, some true believers base their life decisions on Astrology. Has Astrology gone too far? What about Creationism? Has Creationism gone too far?
…..or what about Nazism, or Maoism?
It’s a shame that I have to say this,I hope you have hired security.
I’m a Feminist.
I believe what a women decides to do with her body is between her and her doctor.
(That she can abort a potential life with a clear conscience is another matter. But her conscience is hers too.)
I believe violence against women is bad.
(But spending $500 Million tax dollars a year to fund “awareness programs” is not going to stop violence against women, or anyone else. It’s pork spending.)
I believe women should receive equal pay for equal work.
(But don’t require businesses to abide by govt guidelines on what they should or should not pay individual employees based on job descriptions.)
I’m a Feminist.
What “feminism” really looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE
It’s also what we’ll look like if we start taking silliness like Jack Donovan’s rant seriously.
So you know, whatever. I can’t wait to see the debate.
I wonder how many supportive comments I’d get from suggesting a debate on the merits of chemically castrating men at birth?
Feminism has stayed exactly the same, the technology has gone too far.
http://empathological.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/disillusionment-and-reality/#comment-1791
dejour
“But there was no sentiment in general in favour of a female more than of a male criminal. It entered into the head of no one to weep tears of pity over the murderess of a lover or husband rather than over the murderer of a sweetheart or wife. Similarly, minor offenders, a female blackmailer, a female thief, a female perpetrator of an assault, was not deemed less guilty or worthy of more lenient treatment than a male offender in like cases.
The law, it was assumed, and the assumption was acted upon, was the same for both sexes. The sexes were equal before the law. The laws were harsher in some respects than now, although not perhaps in all. But there was no special line of demarcation as regards the punishment of offences as between men and women. The penalty ordained by the law for crime or misdemeanour was the same for both and in general applied equally to both.
Likewise in civil suits, proceedings were not specially weighted against the man and in favour of the woman. There was, as a general rule, no very noticeable sex partiality in the administration of the law.
This state of affairs continued in England till well into the nineteenth century. Thenceforward a change began to take place. Modern Feminism rose slowly above the horizon.”
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism/Chapter_1
Feminism arose with the C.19th industrial and C.20th consumer revolutions. The introduction of the Pill gave it tremendous renewed impetus in the 1960s.
It’s encouraged by society because, as a narcissistic ideology, it generates consumer demand.
For instance, feminism = divorce and relationship breakdown, (as GWW said once “misandry is so pervasive we don’t even notice that when a woman tells her friends her marriage has problems she’s told to ‘put herself first’. The guy gets told he has to ‘work harder’.
The resulting divorce creates 2x as many households. Any action or behaviour which boosts demand is condoned, any that frustrates it condemned.
Feminism encourages women (and some men) to prioritise their emotions; decide how you ‘feel’ and then assemble the facts to fit.
In fact feminism, as it’s commonly practiced, is actually quite reactionary. It treats women like the mother of a spoilt over-indulged child who’s being bullied in the playground. They can literally do no wrong.
40 years ago if you were 16 and pregnant you’d get an ass-kicking. Today, you’ll get your own TV show.
Unbelievable.
Fuckin cool! Y’all are full of it! Great ideas that is. I look forward to it.
From the bottom of my heart I hope you tear them to shreds with calm and logic.
I’d love to see some feminists hurl insults, lose their temper and capitulate in the face of REAL arguments.
Wish I could be there for this.
The ‘woman of integrity and courage’, who set up the original event, has been named as Ruth Mason-Paull by the online feminist magazine ‘Jezebel’.
She now claims that she cancelled the event because of threats from MRAs:
“I took the event down because of threats I had received from MRA members when I told them I was thinking of cancelling the event/changing the question.
Having my Facebook account linked to here has reduced my safety from these men, who didn’t have my personal information as I was speaking with them over email. I have now had to cancel my FB profile which impacts my job seriously. Luckily I am in England right now so am safe.”
http://jezebel.com/5941876/mens-rights-activists-shocked-that-their-misogynistic-posters-are-being-torn-down
Sigh.
Can anyone ask her which MRAs supposedly threatened her? Can she name them, or name their threats?
I’m not willing to even go to Jezebel and be pilloried, I don’t get paid enough to take that kind of abuse. But has anyone asked? Offhand I’d guess it’s a “Femistasi” ringer but I’d like to know.
I can’t even find reference to the threat! I would go over there to see if I can beat my record of 2 days to a banning
Hmm…don’t know why you can’t see it. Google ‘men’s rights activists don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt’
It’s in the “updates” footnote at the end of that article.
She cancelled because she claims she felt threatened by threats from MRAs.
Bullshit.
No evidence.
Just another false accusation from a feminist.
Does this look like a woman afraid of MRA ‘threats’?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150984297667267&set=a.10150984297577267.417938.691297266&type=3&theater
or this?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150808828152267&set=a.10150808828117267.399197.691297266&type=3&theater
Nothing to see folks. Move on.
Thanks for the free advertising for aVfM Jezebel.
I have to agree. I believe this is just a stunt to try and make AVfM look bad, but as is always the case with these lunatics, they continue to make us look good, and also prove that our stand against radical feminism is justified.
As an aside. I note in one of those FB links she is holding a placard bragging about how “fabulous her abortion was.”
Yep, only a sick mind would find murdering a child to be fabulous.
And that poor child actually had a father too, whom I bet was not even asked if he would care for that child.
No, these types just take what they can from this world, then discard everything they don’t want, like it is nothing be trash. And that includes innocent babies!
Pointless, there won’t be any. It’s all made up.
What’s happened here is quite obvious:
1: Woman sets up debate event with MRAs in good faith, probably not appreciating the fear and hate feminists feel for us.
2. She is attacked by feminists on the event’s FB page.
3. She cancels the events, MRAs (i.e. JtO) are understanding and reschedule.
4. Jezebel author decides to ‘make an example’ of her, to discourage other feminists from engaging with MRAs.
5. Jezebel publishes: her name, her workplace, her personal FB page etc.
6. In panic, woman disowns MRAs, and pleads for forgiveness and re-admittance to the tribe.
There’s a film where this is the plot, but for the life of me can’t recall the title. It’s set in a jungle*.
Jezebel: http://jezebel.com/5941876/mens-rights-activists-shocked-that-their-misogynistic-posters-are-being-torn-down
*It doesn’t feature Facebook obviously, that’d be stupid. Actually, it might be smurfs, not jungle. There’s definitely a witch in it though. I think.
I would hate to think that any MRAs really did threaten her for any reason. Doesn’t help those who are true to the cause in the least.
FFS. Did you just read what I wrote? If you’re going to be that naive perhaps you should change your name to Wilbur
No MRA has ever threatened anyone. Period. Never happened
That’s not just ‘gas-lighting’ it’s a fact – once you’ve swallowed the red pill violence becomes a non-option; violence is a manifestation of blue-pill thinking.
I’ve read lots of feminists accuse MRAs of violence. Not one ever stands up, they’re always bullshit. It’s like when they accuse us of racism or homophobia, when they truth is we’re the exact opposite – it’s complete and utter projection. Nothing more, nothing less.
It really is a redundant question.
Actual debate? Without one party being silenced (usually the men)? Is it really happening?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Thank you for coming to post here. And while I have you, I have to say with all respect that while I believe you approached this in a balanced way, I take issue with MRAs being thrown under the bus in your announcement of cancellation.
You said that part of your decision to cancel was because of threats, and because of some of the things you learned about MRAs.
I would respectfully ask what it was you “learned” about MRAs that made you want to cancel? Because, quite frankly, I don’t believe that for a minute.
A quick look around many feminist websites, (and I don’t mean just Radfem) and you see the glorification of violence and bigotry. Even in one of Jezebels previous articles about women assaulting their boyfriends, the EDITORIAL conclusion was, “All we can say is you better not fuck with us.”
This site is the flagship of the MRM online and I defy anyone to find that kind of statement meeting anything but condemnation here. We don’t even allow it in the comments, much less in feature articles.
The poster runs we have done, which focused one that said “decent human beings do not fear and hate women” and “men’s rights are human rights” result in feminists physically attacking a safety office because he defended our right to place the posters.
The MRM, to anyone looking with the objectivity you present yourself having, is a strictly, passionately non violent movement. We don’t have a Valerie Solanas, and if we did that person would not be lionized by other MRAs. This is clear to anyone with any value on the truth at all.
I am not buying for a second that you were actually threatened by an MRA. We have worked for years to HAVE that debate, not undermine it.
So please tell me, if you will, what you learned about us and where you learned it. And please tell us why, in your statement about calling off the debate, you did not mention the FACT that you were threatened by feminists?
You will not be threatened by anyone here for honestly answering, nor will you if you don’t answer at all. There is no reason not to have the whole story out.
Thank you.
As I have said before, so many people, like lazy, slipshod journalists, ‘find out’ about the MRM by consulting the nearest feminist. You only need to peruse any feminist website to get an inkling of the kinds of things they said. From angry, violent, rape apologist, to kicker of small, furry animals, you can bet the farm that none of it was good.
I would also like to know more about the threats made to Ms Ruth by people who identified themselves as MRAs. What a shame she didn’t report these ‘threats from MRAs’ to the police so they could have traced the URLs of the perpetrators. I would have loved to have seen a Derek Bedry, David Futrelle or Amanda Marcotte led away in handcuffs.
When I read the grovelling apology on Jezebel, all I could think of was, “She loved Big Sister.” Expulsion from the herd is every woman’s Room 101 – unless she is a woman MRA, of course. After confronting the Ministry of Feminism, I’m not surprised that Ms Ruth felt the need to plead for our safety – before leaving the country. I bet they sent her to a S.C.U.M. convention in Sweden.
Well, no answer so far. All I see is a down vote.
Well, I guess one could interpret that to many things. So, I guess we shall just continue to be patient and go on with life, until she decides to re-engage in the discussion. Or she doesn’t.
Either way, I doubt it will cause a ripple in the grand scheme of things.
See the pics? Merely communicating with us via e-mail earned her a collaborationist head shave.
She’s the type of woman who declares herself an equalist – until the femistasi pay a midnight visit with clippers in hand. Overseas my arse. Underseas more like – in concrete boots.